Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TEODORA A. CAPACETE v. VENANCIA BARORO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 205814 2016-02-15	SPS. ALFREDO TEAÑO* AND VERONICA TEAÑO v. MUNICIPALITY OF NAVOTAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
As stated, extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction are the sole and exclusive grounds for an annulment of judgment. Extrinsic fraud is "that which prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his case to the court, or used to procure the judgment without fair submission of the controversy."[40] On the other hand, lack of jurisdiction involves the want of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the case.[41]
	GR NO. 168943 2006-10-27	IGLESIA NI CRISTO v. THELMA A. PONFERRADA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Admittedly, respondents interposed the alternative reinvindicatory action against petitioner. An accion reinvindicatoria does not necessarily presuppose that the actual and material possession of the property is on defendant and that plaintiff seeks the recovery of such possession from defendant. It bears stressing that an accion reinvindicatoria is a remedy seeking the recovery of ownership and includes jus possidendi, jus utendi, and jus fruendi as well. It is an action whereby a party claims ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession.[41] Thus, the owner of real property in actual and material possession thereof may file an accion reinvindicatoria against another seeking ownership over a parcel of land including jus vindicandi, or the right to exclude defendants from the possession thereof. In this case, respondents filed an alternative reinvindicatory action claiming ownership over the property and the cancellation of TCT No. 321744 under the name of petitioner. In fine, they sought to enforce their jus utendi and jus vindicandi when petitioner claimed ownership and prevented them from fencing the property.
	GR NO. 140945 2005-05-16	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. JOSE EVANGELISTA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Lack of jurisdiction refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim, and in either case, the judgment or final order and resolution are void.[21] A trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant either by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons.[22]